3 ms·
It is not just ironic, it's silly. The entire discussion about ad blocking is silly. Why should it be immoral to render a horrible way of monetization useless?
by Kenji 11y ago
It is not just ironic, it's silly. The entire discussion about ad blocking is silly. Why should it be immoral to render a horrible way of monetization useless? Ad blockers are doing the world a favour by sending a strong signal "this far and no further". There are many ways to cleanly embed plain images into websites in a non-obstructive way. Appropriate images. The ad industry has to learn or die, this is evolution and its result is improvement.
- lee 11y agoThe only problem with this is that ad blocking is kind of indiscriminate. There are obviously obnoxious ads out there, those that use popups, use audio, video, or dialog boxes that block out the main content. But on the other hand, there are non-intrusive ads that are text or simple image based ones. Those ads get hit in the cross-fire of ad-blocking. Most of the sites that are producing content charge nothing from the user except for in the form of advertising. That's not a big ask most of the time. It's like Google providing this amazing service, of cataloging and indexing THE ENTIRE INTERNET and providing relevant and fast search results to everyone, and all they ask is that users are displayed simple text ads. It's not a big ask for the service they provide. I realize you can whitelist sites with ad-block. BUT, if you are going to a webpage to read and ingest content, I would argue that morally the transaction is to disable ad-block to view the content.